Escobedo v. Hussain et al
Filing
16
ORDER CONSTRUING Defendants' Filings as an Answer to the Complaint (re 8 & 11 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/22/15. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSE ESCOBEDO,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
v.
SAFWAN HUSSAIN, dba Primo Mini
Mart; KENNETH A. BOCCHINI, Trustee
of the Kenneth A. and Susan L. Bocchini
Family Trust; and Susan L. BOCCHINI,
Trustee of the Kenneth A. and Susan L.
Bocchini Family Trust,
Case No. 1:15-cv-434 --- BAM
ORDER CONSTRUING DEFENDANTS’
FILINGS AS AN ANSWER TO THE
COMPLAINT
(Docs. 8, 11)
Defendants.
18
19
20
On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking relief pursuant to the Americans
21
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), et al., against Defendants Kenneth Bocchini and Susan Bocchini
22
(“Bocchini Defendants”) as the operators of a business located in Fresno, California (“the
23
Property”).1 (Doc. 1). On March 31, 2015, Plaintiff filed a return of service, titled Summons
24
Returned Executed, documenting that the Bocchini Defendants were properly served with the
25
Summons and Complaint. (Docs. 4, 5). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a), the
26
Bocchini Defendants were required to file a responsive pleading on or before April 20, 2015.
27
1
28
Plaintiff also names Safwan Hussain as a defendant. Mr. Hussain has not made an appearance and on May
22, 2015, the Clerk entered default as to Safwan Hussain.
1
1
Shortly after Defendants were served, Defendants, appearing pro se, filed an application
2
for a stay with an attached letter to the Court responding to the allegations in Plaintiff’s
3
4
Complaint. (Doc. 8).
In that letter, Defendants explained that they have made several
modifications to the property and that the changes render the property ADA compliant.2
5
6
Defendants also stated that they “are looking forward to seeing Jose Escobedo in Court.” (Doc. 8
7
at 3). In a second letter filed with the Court on May 15, 2015, Defendants explain that additional
8
ADA modifications have been made at the Property in response to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc.
9
11). The Bocchini Defendants again expressed that they “are looking forward to meeting with
10
Mr. Escobar [sic] to discuss a resolution.” (Doc. 11).
11
By filing several letters with the Court responding to the allegations in Plaintiff’s
12
13
14
complaint, the Court finds that Defendants have sufficiently indicated their intent to defend
against this action. Defendants are without counsel and the Court recognizes that it must be
15
“sensitive to the challenges faced by pro se litigants unfamiliar with the judicial process.” See
16
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled in part on other
17
grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Accordingly, in the interest of
18
justice, the Court construes Defendants’ letters filed on April 28, 2015 and May 20, 2015 as an
19
answer or otherwise responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Complaint. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d
20
21
22
1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir.1986) (“Cases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably
possible.”).3
23
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
24
1.
25
Kenneth and Susan Bocchini’s documents filed on April 28, 2015 and May 18,
2015 are construed as an ANSWER to the Complaint. (Docs. 8, 11).
26
27
2
On May 7, 2015, the Court denied Defendants’ Application to Stay. (Doc. 9).
Although Defendants initial responsive pleading was filed after the answer deadline, an eight-day delay in
filing an answer does not merit entry of default.
3
28
2
1
2
2.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on Defendants via United
States mail at the following address:
3
Kenneth and Susan Bocchini
2208 Mesa Verde Drive
Milpitas, California
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
May 22, 2015
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?